On Life and Death. Facts and Myths

[Thunder_Gr]

Human cells are incredibly different from bacterial cells, and human cells do not become bacterial cells if removed from the person. A cancer cell, also, is extremely different from a bacterial cells.

No one looking under a microscope would mistake a human cell for a bacterial cell, and any genetic test would show differences too.

I'd better phrase it differently. A nerv cell, is completelly different than a liver cell, which is completelly different than a muscle cell. However, the difference is not in organic parts. They all have a core, a core membrane, mitochondria, a cell membrane. And so does a bacteria cell.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Bacteria cells don't have a lot of those things - certainly not mitochondria or nuclei.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Bacteria cells don't have a lot of those things - certainly not mitochondria or nuclei.

If they had not nuclei, they wouldn't be able to reproduce. If they hadn't mitochondria, they wouldn't be able to use oxygen.

There are bacteria that are unaerobic. I am refering to aerobic bacteria.

In any case, these are only minor differences. The basic parts are there. The human cells are living organisms, that could have been able to live independently if they had chosen to.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yes, but they still don't have those things - they use other means of feeding and reproduction. Bacteria are [wiki]prokaryotes[/wiki], our cells are [wiki]eukaryotes[/wiki].

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Yes, but they still don't have those things - they use other means of feeding and reproduction. Bacteria are [wiki]prokaryotes[/wiki], our cells are [wiki]eukaryotes[/wiki].

Yes, indeed. They do not have a core membrane, but they have nuclei.

This is the only difference of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. In fact, these are Greek words meaning "without a core membrane" and "with a core membrane" respectively.

However, there are free eukaryotic cells. Most of them like to live in colonies though.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

They don't have mitochondria, though, which you said they had.

(Also, they don't a nucleus at all, according to Wikipedia, but I am not 100% sure of that.)

 

[Thunder_Gr]

They don't have mitochondria, though, which you said they had.

(Also, they don't a nucleus at all, according to Wikipedia, but I am not 100% sure of that.)

Mitochondia are carried by all living cells that use oxygen to produce energy. By "bacteria" I am refering to all cells that do not live as a part of an organism. But this is not correct, sice there are both Eukariotic and Procariotic such cells.
Procaryotic cells have RNA, which is moving freely within the cell. Eucariotic cells have DNA in the core and they trasfer the orders using the RNA that exists in the rest of the Cell. The only difference beteween DNA and RNA is that one Has Urakili instead of Thymini(IIRC), and during the copy translation, it changes. There is also one acid root less in RNA than in DNA. But they preform the same function

 

[El_Machinae]

Thunder Gr, while I appreciate your curiosity, you're quite wrong about what bacteria are and the nature of prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes. This is why your conclusion is so alien to us.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Thunder Gr, while I appreciate your curiosity, you're quite wrong about what bacteria are and the nature of prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes. This is why your conclusion is so alien to us.

Interesting. You surerly know that Mitochondria are not a component of an eukariotic cell. It is a completelly independant cell, having its own DNA, and just lives as a sumbiotic cell in organic eukariotic cells, and it can very easily live on its own.

Of course, again, you know that the egg that makes us what we are is a single cell that divides itself billions of times. So, if this is not a simple lifeform creating a complex lifeform, what it is?

In addition, since it appears that you believe you actually know something more than what I do, and since you believe that my misconception of biology vocabulary is the reason my theory is so alien, and not the fact that we are taught differently since the moment we are born, I am more than willing to listen(read) to you own theory about the theme.

 

[Brighteye]

Mitochondria are a part of a living eukaryote. They have their own DNA, but cannot function without additional proteins made from DNA in the main nucleus. They cannot 'live' on their own.
An egg is an interesting place to start to justify the claim that simple lifeforms make complex ones. For every example you can find, I can find you an example of a complex lifeform giving rise to a simple one.
If I gave you the plans for a building you could build it, given time and materials. Yet you would be unlikely to call my plans less complex than the building. Any and all complexity in the building itself would have been present in my plans.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Mitochondria are a part of a living eukaryote. They have their own DNA, but cannot function without additional proteins made from DNA in the main nucleus. They cannot 'live' on their own.

According to the Biologist Layal Watchon, which have published a bunch of books about life and organisms, they can.

An egg is an interesting place to start to justify the claim that simple lifeforms make complex ones. For every example you can find, I can find you an example of a complex lifeform giving rise to a simple one.
If I gave you the plans for a building you could build it, given time and materials. Yet you would be unlikely to call my plans less complex than the building. Any and all complexity in the building itself would have been present in my plans.

The plans are the DNA. Of course you are aware that the DNA of all mammals are very similar to the DNA of a human. In fact, there are a lot of cimilarities with other species as well, some of them have longer and more complex DNA. Yet, it appears that the plans alone are not enough.

Should I remind that a protein is a complex structure comprised by simpler aminoxea, which are comprised by simpler organic and anorganic elements?

 

[El_Machinae]

Interesting. You surerly know that Mitochondria are not a component of an eukariotic cell. It is a completelly independant cell, having its own DNA, and just lives as a sumbiotic cell in organic eukariotic cells, and it can very easily live on its own.

The ancestor of our mitochondria was an independent organism, but mitochondria have lost the ability to be independent.

Of course, again, you know that the egg that makes us what we are is a single cell that divides itself billions of times. So, if this is not a simple lifeform creating a complex lifeform, what it is?

Trillions of times, sure. But the there are tens of trillions of single cells which don't create a 'complex lifeform' around your body right now. I took exception to the idea that single cells 'tend to' form complex organisms, because they don't. It's very rare for single celled organisms to do that, all told

In addition, since it appears that you believe you actually know something more than what I do, and since you believe that my misconception of biology vocabulary is the reason my theory is so alien, and not the fact that we are taught differently since the moment we are born, I am more than willing to listen(read) to you own theory about the theme.

Well, your vocabulary is tough to follow, though we'll clearly try to work through that. I just don't buy the idea that consciousness 'wills' individual cells to start dying. Firstly, too many living things have cells that die, but don't seem to have consciousness. Secondly, cells can die before (and after) the consciousness is gone.

Layal Watchon

Ah, that explains things. He's a kook.

 

[Theige]

Of course, again, you know that the egg that makes us what we are is a single cell that divides itself billions of times. So, if this is not a simple lifeform creating a complex lifeform, what it is?

I think you're forgetting a second cell there bud

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The ancestor of our mitochondria was an independent organism, but mitochondria have lost the ability to be independent.

This is not true, according to the sources I have presented. But it is not very relevant.
just interesting.

Trillions of times, sure. But the there are tens of trillions of single cells which don't create a 'complex lifeform' around your body right now. I took exception to the idea that single cells 'tend to' form complex organisms, because they don't. It's very rare for single celled organisms to do that, all told

You must have misread my post. I said life tends to create not single cells tend to create. There is a huge difference.

Well, your vocabulary is tough to follow, though we'll clearly try to work through that. I just don't buy the idea that consciousness 'wills' individual cells to start dying. Firstly, too many living things have cells that die, but don't seem to have consciousness. Secondly, cells can die before (and after) the consciousness is gone.

The definition of "conciousness" is the key here. Also, the differences, if any, between a single-celled organism's consiousness and a more complex organism's are also interesting to look into.

I think you're forgetting a second cell there bud

The second cell does not multiply. It just gives 1/2 of the DNA required in order to ensure variaety. Interesting, isn't it?
Some organisms, typical example-frog-, do not need a second cell in order to produce a new organism, just the "illusion" of such a cell having appeared(a pinch with a hair or a needle).

Ah, that explains things. He's a kook.

Well, no experiment has proved him wrong, plus, his references are dozens of books and experiments preformed by other scientists...

For every example you can find, I can find you an example of a complex lifeform giving rise to a simple one.

Can you find me one example that in a world of protons/neutrons and electrons, a protein may appear before oxygen?

 

[Brighteye]

The plans are the DNA. Of course you are aware that the DNA of all mammals are very similar to the DNA of a human. In fact, there are a lot of cimilarities with other species as well, some of them have longer and more complex DNA. Yet, it appears that the plans alone are not enough.

Should I remind that a protein is a complex structure comprised by simpler aminoxea, which are comprised by simpler organic and anorganic elements?

The DNA is similar, I will agree, and the basic cell biology shares quite a lot in common as well.
But longer does not mean more complex. In fact, if I have superb compression technology, a digital copy of my plans for a skyscraper will be vastly shorter than an entirely uncompressed copy of plans for a family home.

Amino acids are made of chemical elements. How does this relate to the suggestion that life wills itself to die?

Can you find me one example that in a world of protons/neutrons and electrons, a protein may appear before oxygen?

The observation that smaller building blocks need to occur before those things which build with them in no way supports any comment on the theory of life and death. It's a logical necessity.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, no experiment has proved him wrong, plus, his references are dozens of books and experiments preformed by other scientists...

Well, I can prove he's a kook. He's tricked you into thinking that mitochondria can exist independently of their cell. You've clearly read more of his work than I have, but the works that you've read have actually misinformed you about biology.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Well, I can prove he's a kook. He's tricked you into thinking that mitochondria can exist independently of their cell. You've clearly read more of his work than I have, but the works that you've read have actually misinformed you about biology.

Perhaps he has preformed(or he is aware of) experiments that have proven this, while most of the rest of the people are not taught this kind of things?

 

[El_Machinae]

Proving that mitochondria can exist outside of their cells would completely innovate the field of biology. It would change everything. It's one of those things that would have been discovered by now, if it were true. It would be like finding out that the Moon is actually made of cheese.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The DNA is similar, I will agree, and the basic cell biology shares quite a lot in common as well.
But longer does not mean more complex. In fact, if I have superb compression technology, a digital copy of my plans for a skyscraper will be vastly shorter than an entirely uncompressed copy of plans for a family home.

Amino acids are made of chemical elements. How does this relate to the suggestion that life wills itself to die?

Hmmm. I did not exactly say that life wills to die. I said that we assume this to be a fact.

The observation that smaller building blocks need to occur before those things which build with them in no way supports any comment on the theory of life and death. It's a logical necessity.

So, it is a logical necessity that protons/neutrons and electrons will create a protein?
According to what I have read, the propability of an infinite number of aminoxea left to combine themself freely for as long as they like, to create a simple protein is less than the total number of protons in the universe. And, it is certain that, after the creation, if it would happen, the protein would be dismantled at once.

Proving that mitochondria can exist outside of their cells would completely innovate the field of biology. It would change everything. It's one of those things that would have been discovered by now, if it were true. It would be like finding out that the Moon is actually made of cheese.

Perhaps the same thing people believed when the theory about the earth orbiting the sun and it is round, came to be an issue. Even if it wasn't a new knowledge(ancient Greeks already had a theory about this), it almost cost the scientist his life and the world kept believing the contrary for a few centuries before it was finally accepted, thanks to economical and political reasons.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, it's nothing like that. We know which genes are missing, even, for the mitochondria to be viable outside of the cell. Brighteye alluded to them. In fact, different species have different missing genes, which is one clue to their common ancestry.

We've known the missing genes in some species for over a decade. There's no economical or political pressure, because no one has a vested interest in scientifically proving mitochondria dependent. We don't care, since we know that it once was independent.